Oh yeah. Like Boeing never had an over-run? Let's talk about the ABL for a while.The 767 and 330 are completely different airframes with the 330 being larger. If it is size the Air Force wants, the 777 airframe would have provided the services with even more capability.
You can bet that the Air Force specifically asked for the 767 airframe. Had they asked for more fuel/payload capability than the 767 can provide Boeing would have bid the job with the 777.
In these competitions it is generally understood that no extra credit be given for capability beyond that which is specified in the requirements document. In this case it appears that "extra credit" was awarded.
Come on people. How can an airframe built in Europe with very high labor rates be competitive with one built in the US? Government subsidies thats how.
So now we have France, Germany, and the UK subsidizing the US military. The price America pays for the favor is paid in the currency of the middle class worker.
One final note. I'll bet a nickel that cost overruns will total at least 25% of the project. That's how Northrop operates - they were prime on the B-2 - remember how that one turned out?
As I've posted on other boards, no one is talking about the total lifecycle cost of the two respective aircraft. The Airbus solution was shown to have lower maintenance costs 10, 20, 30 years down the road. This by the way is why all the "patriotic Americans" on this board buy Japanese cars: they cost less to maintain.